If I were Apple, I would make a x86 instructions compatible processor with ARM core. Modern Intel processors used the same technique with RISC-like core and x86 microcode. This way, no transition issues, if not 100% compatible with existing software.
That would never happen. There might be a small chance of a Rosetta-like layer to the operating system that will translate x86 to ARM. However Parallels is used by *many* Mac users. If Parallels supports ARM and Microsoft releases a retail version of Windows 10 for ARM then this will not be an issue. Windows 10 for ARM already has a x86 to ARM translation layer for the Surface.
I'd still say they are going to be moving to custom-designed AMD chipsets instead. Probably based around the Zen 2 architecture. It'll retain x86 compatibility and provide better performance for the power. The move to an all ARM platform seems a little too early. Yes, they could if they wanted to, but I still think there needs to be considerable work done before Windows on ARM becomes a proper, mass-embraced thing.
Apple makes macOS. Microsoft makes Windows.
Well DUH.
The point is that Macs are in a position to run both operating systems. Virtually or via natively. As a systems administrator who works for a system integrator (and before that, a VFX software firm), I work across multiple operating systems and the Mac is the only device that allows me to consolidate both OSes within the same hardware. Shift to ARM, that goes away.
I'd still say they are going to be moving to custom-designed AMD chipsets instead. Probably based around the Zen 2 architecture. It'll retain x86 compatibility and provide better performance for the power. The move to an all ARM platform seems a little too early. Yes, they could if they wanted to, but I still think there needs to be considerable work done before Windows on ARM becomes a proper, mass-embraced thing.
A Mac running ARM Windows makes no sense (I think we agree on that). I don’t think Apple will go AMD besides using their discrete graphics ...until they develop their own. I remember reading Intel gives Apple amazing prices for their chips. It’s possible AMD could match it, but Intel and Apple collaborate elsewhere. Eventually Apple will do everything in-house, but until then switching to AMD seems like a needless complication.
Oh goodness - certainly not at the moment. Microsoft was certainly brave to release the Surface Pro X, but realistically it's not much use to most people given how little support there is for ARM-based Windows applications at the moment. That may grow, but I don't see it happening for a very long while - if that. Apple does already have its own discrete graphics based off of the PowerVR graphics found in iPhones and iPad Pro. But whether that's going to be good enough for the Mac and will continue to use AMD for that, I don't know.
It's all rumours and guesses at this stage. If they go ARM on the Mac, I'd expect to see a development kit rolled out a good 6-12 months before any consumer kit is released. And I'd hope that Apple will continue to support Intel Macs for another 4-5 years after the last Intel hardware is released to ensure plenty of time for people to take advantage of hardware they've just purchased.
To be clear, Windows for ARM can translate x86 to Arm on the fly. Whatever Apple comes out with will certainly far surpass the Qualcomm chip the Surface uses. It is yet to be seen if Microsoft will allow Windows on a non-surface device or how well the translation will work for apps that need a very high level of performance, but chances are performance will be good. It may benefit Microsoft with more developers dual booting their OS and help encourage developers to release Windows software that doesn’t require a translation layer. Microsoft also wants Unix developers on-board with Windows to help make sure tooling works across platforms. There may be a dual benefit that encourages Microsoft to make this happen on their end.
BTW- Apple’s GPU is not based on PowerVR anymore. It is still tile based, but it is a ground up redesign. I’m sure it will be great for battery life. They may still include a discrete option from AMD.
The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
Can't Apple achieve the same thing using iPadOS as opposed to porting macOS to ARM?
Honestly this would be very cool— An iPad Pro with a Mac compatibility mode. Too bad this is probably pretty unlikely... However Macs are much more powerful and I don’t see the operating systems merging.
"Then, too, there are Windows virtualization options, such as Parallels. These tend to be clunkier than the hardware Boot Camp, but then if you weren't prepared for clunkiness, you wouldn't be using Windows."
Why are you pushing Parallels when VMware is a much better product? I run Fusion and it's not clunky. Running Boot Camp is easier because you simply boot into it but running a virtual OS, or multiple virtual OSes, is the way many server farms are running today. Why worry about Boot Camp when there's a good product that replaces it?
I've been watching some youtube videos showing Hackintosh running on AMD Ryzen CPUs that are half the price of the Mac Pro and are faster. Yes, there are a few limitations but they use a motherboard that includes the following, very friendly to Mac, capabilities: DDR4, PCIe 4.0, SATA 6Gb/s, M.2, USB 3.2, AX Wi-Fi 6, 10G Super LAN. If these "PC" motherboards and the Ryzen CPU are both more or less Mac compatible then Apple surely can build their own AMD CPU, motherboard and everything else while adding full software capability. I see it as when, not if.
There are reasons to pick Parallels over VMWare Fusion and vice-versa. I prefer Parallels at the moment since it has DirectX 11 support. VMWare Fusion only supports DirectX 10. This allows Parallels to run many games and pro-creative software that is impossible in Fusion.
The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
Can't Apple achieve the same thing using iPadOS as opposed to porting macOS to ARM?
Honestly this would be very cool— An iPad Pro with a Mac compatibility mode. Too bad this is probably pretty unlikely... However Macs are much more powerful and I don’t see the operating systems merging.
This is a similar strategy that MS is pursuing with Windows 10X - it's basically a ground-up redo of Windows 10 optimized for dual-screen / 2-in-1 devices with a Win32 compatibility mode.
The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
Can't Apple achieve the same thing using iPadOS as opposed to porting macOS to ARM?
Honestly this would be very cool— An iPad Pro with a Mac compatibility mode. Too bad this is probably pretty unlikely... However Macs are much more powerful and I don’t see the operating systems merging.
I'd think an Unleashed iPadOS doesn't need to merge with macOS indeed could if it really creates a "true to the task at hand" interface could easily supplant macOS for all productivity apps but that would take a decade or more at the current pace or some more willing from Apple to let the iPad be what it wants to be.
Why make a pure ARM mac when they could make a better iPad?
Unless they can keep all the features that are currently in place including Bootcamp it would be the worst mistake Apple could do.
Because advancing technology is a bad thing.
It is when you are asking for an abundance of new problems, totally unnecessarily.
What new problems? Apple's already saddled with a bunch of problems. And Apple has been designing CPUs AND refining ARM compilers for over a decade now.
If I were Apple, I would make a x86 instructions compatible processor with ARM core. Modern Intel processors used the same technique with RISC-like core and x86 microcode. This way, no transition issues, if not 100% compatible with existing software.
You would then loose your ARM advantages! Beyond that this article is extremely misleading there are far more ARM based devices out there than Intel. X86 does not share the popularity it once had. The operating systems on these devices is Linux derived or MacOS derIved, Windows isn’t even a thing anymore.
Windows users are more of a joke today than at anytime in the past. It is the land of the gamer and corporate drone. Windows isn’t a problem and the people that claim it is either have a special interest or are living in the past.
Software itself will not be like it was in the past switch overs because Apple has designed gene Mac OS around the possibility. Further they have been beating developers every year at WWDC to write to the API’s. By the way this isn’t simply for the possibility to go to ARM, developers have benefitted many times already as APIs have been updated to leverage new hardware.
Unless they can keep all the features that are currently in place including Bootcamp it would be the worst mistake Apple could do.
I don't think so. Once upon a time, the Mac gave the halo to the iPhone. It hasn't been that way in 10 years, and is instead the other way around. The new Mac user doesn't care. Boot Camp installs are a very small percentage of the overall user base, as the article discusses.
We'll all see together.
This is so true! Which is why I’m not sure why AI is running such a negative article. Back in 2008 the whole idea behind my Mac purchase was that I had the ability to run Windows in boot camp if needed. Even after a series of Macs I never did, never even thought about it. What I did do was run Linux in a virtual machine. That worked beautifully and should also work beautifully with ARM based Linux.
Well it should work if Apple doesn’t do anything crazy. I left the Mac because of Apples lack of attention to the line and some really stupid moves to excessive control. This is Apples weak point when it comes to ARM based Macs, they could take the change as an opportunity to make the platform worse by locking it down even more. ARM will have Lito do with success here it will come down to this: did Apple make the machine better or worse in the eyes of those with influence.
Don’t expect the entire line of Apple products to switch to ARM at the same time.
MacBook Air (ARM) MacBook (ARM + discrete graphics) MacBook Pro (Intel for Boot Camp users & compatibility)
The rest of the Macs (& iMacs) are a bit of a mess. The Mac Pro is obviously going to stay Intel for a long time. But what about the iMac and iMac Pro? If the same naming conventions apply, the iMac Pro would be Intel. What about the Mac mini? Does it get the ARM chip + discrete graphics? I would think it needs Boot Camp...
Don’t count on anything you have said here as the best estimate of the future. For example the current Mac Pro is a dog and can be eclipsed vastly by a number of chips. Fujitsu’s new ARM based processor for example is slower house of performance. Even in the X86 world the Mac Pro is an embarrassment when competing against AMDs Threadrippers.
I still don’t think people realize how far behind Intel is. Even in the laptop world the only compete when doing nothing.
I'd still say they are going to be moving to custom-designed AMD chipsets instead. Probably based around the Zen 2 architecture. It'll retain x86 compatibility and provide better performance for the power. The move to an all ARM platform seems a little too early. Yes, they could if they wanted to, but I still think there needs to be considerable work done before Windows on ARM becomes a proper, mass-embraced thing.
Apple makes macOS. Microsoft makes Windows.
Well DUH.
The point is that Macs are in a position to run both operating systems. Virtually or via natively. As a systems administrator who works for a system integrator (and before that, a VFX software firm), I work across multiple operating systems and the Mac is the only device that allows me to consolidate both OSes within the same hardware. Shift to ARM, that goes away.
So?
really So?
consider the average user of Windows 10 has to buy a new box just to run Windows 10. Longevity is not something one experiences in tech land.
There is large number of open-source libraries in use, and both closed source and open source applications built on these running on macOS where it is highly unlikely they will ever be ported to ARM. Many of these run on the current macOS by a shoe-string only by feature of running on Intel, as the port is relative untrivial compared to a port to ARM.
You're missing the crucial aspect of Open Source software: the source code is ...open.
The ones that are needed will come along. As needed.
Beyond that he doesn’t realize that Linux has been running on ARM for sometime. Same libraries, this and networking capabilities.
If history is any indicator, Apple lead the way to PowerPC with 3 distinct models, the base model was internally called Galileo, then Copernicus and the high end was named in honor of Carl Sagan, called simply Sagan. I was one of the engineers at Motorola at the time, and we were competing against IBM for the sales of these processors, however we worked together in the design and layout of these chips.
Somehow, Carl Sagan discovered that we were using his name as a Code name, internally only, on the high end PowerPC Mac; and he sued. Steve Jobs promptly had us change the internal code name to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer), again in his honor.
But, these 3 models launched simultaneously, and the writing was on the wall - given the performance of these units, the Motorola 680x0 was on the way out. Most everyone adopted the new PowerPC computers. Also, at that time, Apple opened up their OS and allowed another company to make an Apple clone under the name of Power Computing, which used designs that were ham-strung by Apple, yet they streamlined other areas of the design to make very competitive machines that essentially cannibalized Apple's market share - the cloning agreement was discontinued, an Power Computing failed shortly thereafter.
Aside from the cloning mistake - I think that Apple will likely come out with a few competitive lines of ARM Macs, that will show a superior performance level across a variety of price points, and performance will sell the ARM Macs. It's pretty apparent, Intel cannot match the performance improvements we are witnessing year after year with the ARM processors.
After reading through all the comments here I really don’t think people grasp the poor state of affairs in Mac land. I left the Mac world 2 years ago now for a variety of reasons from port support, over priced hardware and hardware designed to meet nobodies need. ARM is actually an opportunity for Apple to win me back as a customer.
Why?
1. They could use it as an excuse to get reasonable about pricing of hardware. Apples products in the Mac department have become the biggest ripoffs I’ve ever seen. So maybe ARM will be the excuse to stop selling RAM and SSD’s at 5x their value. 2. Maybe - just maybe they will put enough ports on the laptops to make them useful. And better yet all laptops get power through a standard port (USB-PD). I don’t want to have to buy a special power pack ever again, the same for supplemental power banks this can be applied to the Mini too.
3. The desire to own an ARM based laptop is huge, this simply to have something that can run for ages (at least two days) under intermittent load. But it is t just run time it would be nice to have a legitimate possibility of recharging or running from a solar panel. This would be in the 10 watt panel range. Something you can get real power from yet is transportable.
My take on it is that the transition to 64bit is the most difficult one. Now we are past that the hurdle to ARM (64bit) is relatively easy. This is so because 64 bit driver software using 64 OS (library) hooks is already there and transferring this to ARM code is just a recompile. Remember that the (64bit) OS is the abstraction to the hardware and no one is poking directly on it (the hardware) anymore. So its a recompile of existing 64bit code in a high level language (nobody is writing software in assembly anymore (and rightly so)) against existing 64bit OS libraries, and that is only a few seconds to minutes away.
Apple correctly transitioned to 64 bit first as a precursor to transition to ARM and shed tons of old and non maintained 32 bit code in the process. Moving to ARM is just a breeze, losing Windows as a result is a godsend I think.
By the way, Windows via bootcamp is susceptible to specific hardware driver support, but that is not the case for Windows running on virtualizer software like Parallels, because that emulates standard hardware (of which it is know to be supported by Windows).
Is there any reason Apple wouldn't choose to introduce an ARM Mac while keeping Intel Macs still in production?
Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? Cheaper, faster, more power-efficient Macs for the average user, and dual-boot capable Macs for those who need it.
I don't know much about the technical and business implications of such a move, so any insight would be appreciated.
Is there any reason Apple wouldn't choose to introduce an ARM Mac while keeping Intel Macs still in production?
Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? Cheaper, faster, more power-efficient Macs for the average user, and dual-boot capable Macs for those who need it.
I don't know much about the technical and business implications of such a move, so any insight would be appreciated.
We don't expect a 100% replacement in the first year. Mac mini, MacBook Air, MacBook are the likeliest first moves.
After reading through all the comments here I really don’t think people grasp the poor state of affairs in Mac land. I left the Mac world 2 years ago now for a variety of reasons from port support, over priced hardware and hardware designed to meet nobodies need. ARM is actually an opportunity for Apple to win me back as a customer.
Why?
1. They could use it as an excuse to get reasonable about pricing of hardware. Apples products in the Mac department have become the biggest ripoffs I’ve ever seen. So maybe ARM will be the excuse to stop selling RAM and SSD’s at 5x their value. 2. Maybe - just maybe they will put enough ports on the laptops to make them useful. And better yet all laptops get power through a standard port (USB-PD). I don’t want to have to buy a special power pack ever again, the same for supplemental power banks this can be applied to the Mini too.
3. The desire to own an ARM based laptop is huge, this simply to have something that can run for ages (at least two days) under intermittent load. But it is t just run time it would be nice to have a legitimate possibility of recharging or running from a solar panel. This would be in the 10 watt panel range. Something you can get real power from yet is transportable.
Poor state for you does not equal a poor state universally. For instance, your continued claims of poor "port support" is absolutely not universal.
The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
Can't Apple achieve the same thing using iPadOS as opposed to porting macOS to ARM?
It’s more like recompiling macOS for ARM. Porting involves rewriting code and use of other libraries. macOS is a ‘full’ OS, meaning that it contains such things as the means to program and compile application (including iOS) and lots of (application) libraries and driver software missing from iOS.
Comments
BTW- Apple’s GPU is not based on PowerVR anymore. It is still tile based, but it is a ground up redesign. I’m sure it will be great for battery life. They may still include a discrete option from AMD.
What new problems? Apple's already saddled with a bunch of problems. And Apple has been designing CPUs AND refining ARM compilers for over a decade now.
really So?
consider the average user of Windows 10 has to buy a new box just to run Windows 10. Longevity is not something one experiences in tech land.
2. Maybe - just maybe they will put enough ports on the laptops to make them useful. And better yet all laptops get power through a standard port (USB-PD). I don’t want to have to buy a special power pack ever again, the same for supplemental power banks this can be applied to the Mini too.
My take on it is that the transition to 64bit is the most difficult one.
Now we are past that the hurdle to ARM (64bit) is relatively easy.
This is so because 64 bit driver software using 64 OS (library) hooks is already there and transferring this to ARM code is just a recompile. Remember that the (64bit) OS is the abstraction to the hardware and no one is poking directly on it (the hardware) anymore.
So its a recompile of existing 64bit code in a high level language (nobody is writing software in assembly anymore (and rightly so)) against existing 64bit OS libraries, and that is only a few seconds to minutes away.
Apple correctly transitioned to 64 bit first as a precursor to transition to ARM and shed tons of old and non maintained 32 bit code in the process.
Moving to ARM is just a breeze, losing Windows as a result is a godsend I think.
By the way, Windows via bootcamp is susceptible to specific hardware driver support, but that is not the case for Windows running on virtualizer software like Parallels, because that emulates standard hardware (of which it is know to be supported by Windows).
Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? Cheaper, faster, more power-efficient Macs for the average user, and dual-boot capable Macs for those who need it.
I don't know much about the technical and business implications of such a move, so any insight would be appreciated.
Poor state for you does not equal a poor state universally. For instance, your continued claims of poor "port support" is absolutely not universal.
Porting involves rewriting code and use of other libraries.
macOS is a ‘full’ OS, meaning that it contains such things as the means to program and compile application (including iOS) and lots of (application) libraries and driver software missing from iOS.